Los Angeles daily herald., 1887-10-18

In the case Of the Azusa Water Company
VS.. Marshall ct al, the demurrer to the COM
piaint was 0yerruied and the defendants
granted ten days to answer.
Z Mulky VS.. NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. argued
and submitted.
Alhambra Water Co. VS.. Richardson, ct al
Ankers VS.. Wils0n-Demurrer to amended
complaint sustained.
Los Angeles Planning Mill vs. keenan,
Demurrer filed-sst for October 81.
Goldsworthy vs.. Neimeyer-Demurrerfi filed
set for October "a.
Carpenter vs. Curtis, et al.-Demurrer
ovsrruled-10 days granted to answer;
Smith VS.. Mogart, ct. al,-Demurrer filed
set for October "a.
Machada VS.. Lugo-Demurrer filed-set
for October "a,
Howard VS.. Messick-Demurrer fied-set
for october 81.
Parker VS., BrOwn-Demurrer entered
set for October 81.
Mariner VS.. Dennison-Demurrer signed d
and submitted.
Ploit VS.. Giles-Motion to set aside ser,
vice of summons and dismiss action argued
and submitted.
Bukhart VS.. Barclay-Motion to continue
to October "a sustained.
Love VS., Rising-Continued to october "a
Stuhr VS.. Stuhr-Continued to october "a.
Stone VS.. Billings-Demurrer entered-set
for October "a.
Sanchez VS.. De Cells ct al.-Demurrer en-
| tered set for october oath.
Azusa w. ID. Co. VS.. Duarte Mutual lrriga-
ton Company-Demurrsr entered; set tor
october oath.
Burlingame VS.. Rowland-Continued to
October Oath.
Miller VS.. Pattie-Demurrer entered; set
| for October Oath.
WOlfrom VS.. WOlfrom-DlvOrcei decree
granted; findings waived.
Mcdonald VS.. Observation-Disclosures; decree
granted.
Emma Everson has entered suit in the
I,ap ,,tp
for tn the ~ recovery Of $25OO which he, as her
agent, had received from divers persons, Dut
which he had failed to pay over to her, ana
Judgment is asked in that sum.
Supreme Court.
The following business was transacted
yesterday in the Supreme Court:
Baird VS.. Board of Supervisors of Tulare
county-On motion of Tupper. ordered
cause be submitted upon briefs on file, =,
Edwards VS.. County OF Fresno-Ordereu
continued for the term.
Chick VS.. Garrison ct al.-Argued by Olney
for appellant, Daggett for respondent; Or
dered that respondent be allowed ten days
to file brief, appellant twenty days to reply
thereto, cause to be thereupon submitted.
Guion vs. Donahoo--0n motion of Tupper,
ordered that the appeal herein be ana the
same is hereby dismissed.
Quinlan VS.. Noble-On motion of Wright,
ordered respondent be allowed 10 days to
to be thereupon submitted.
Larsen VS.. Hansen-Argued by Tupper,
ordered respondent be allowed 10 days to
file brief, appellant 10 days to reply, cause
to be thereupon submitted.
Bancroft VS.. Crosby ct al.-On motion OF
Shaw ordered cause be submitted upon
briefs on file.
Hawn VS.. the 76 Land and Water CO.
On motion of Tupper, ordered appellant be
allowed 20 days TO file brief, cause toe be
thereupou submitted
Hughes VS.. Thompson ct al.-Pursuant to
stipulation filed herein, ordered that ap-
pellant be allowed 80 days to file brief, re-
spondent 80 days to reply, cause to be there
upon submitted.
waggle, Sr. VS. Worthy ct al..-0n motion
to show for appellant, ordered and be sub
mitted upon briefs ON file.
Hughes VS.. Wheeler-On motion OF Grady
for appellant, ordered that appellant be al
lowed 80 days to file brief respondent go
days to reply, cause to be thersupon sub
mitted.
Walker VS.. walker-On motion of ]. b.
de las Casas; ordered that the appeal be and
the same is hereby dismissed.
People VS.. Flyn, Down VS.. Richards, Ross
vs. Williams, Amador NJ. Co. vs. Dettitt,
stockton VS.. Kenock, Miller ct al vs. Thorn
as ct al.-Rehearing denied.